Menachos 5
Summary
- An opening dedication is given לעילוי נשמת מרת מרים שרה בת יעקב משה, and the narrative resumes מנחות דף ה from ריש לקיש אמר with the question of a מנחת העומר whose קמיצה is done שלא לשמה and how that affects both the הקרבן and the היתר of חדש. Rav’s earlier view holds that such an עומר is פסול because it fails in its role as מתיר חדש, while ריש לקיש and Rava each maintain versions of כשרות with different consequences for the שיריים and for whether another מנחת עומר is needed. The text then shifts to a ברייתא on the extra phrase מן הבקר and why it is needed to exclude a טרפה from קרבנות despite an apparent קל וחומר, and it presents several attempted refutations that repeatedly fail because the counterexamples are cases where “מצוותה בכך.”
- A dedication is stated for לעילוי נשמת מרת מרים שרה בת יעקב משה with the wish that her נשמה should have an עליה. A note is added that there are many parentheses that are skipped because they are explanatory material that entered early versions and was later parenthesized, not an alternate גרסא.
- A מנחת עומר is defined as a barley מנחה brought on the sixteenth of ניסן, the second day of פסח, and it is described as מתיר חדש, meaning new grain remains forbidden until the עומר is brought. Rav’s position is presented as the first of three שיטות and rules that if the קמיצה is done שלא לשמה it is פסול because it does not function as מכשיר the new grain, so the entire מנחה is invalid.
- Reish Lakish rules that מנחת העומר שקמצה שלא לשמה כשירה, but its שיריים are not eaten until another מנחת העומר comes and permits them. The Gemara challenges this from ממשקה ישראל, deriving that one brings for קרבנות only what is permitted to ישראל, and asks how this עומר can be offered if it has not been מתיר חדש. Rav Pappa answers that Reish Lakish holds אין מחוסר זמן לבו ביום, so a same-day pending permissibility is not treated as פסול מחוסר זמן.
- A ברייתא teaches differences between עופות and מנחות, stating that birds can be brought as a partnership donation of two people and can come for מחוסר כפרה such as זב וזבה יולדת ומצורע, and it states והותר מכלל איסור בקודש regarding מליקה. It contrasts this with מנחות, which require כלי, תנופה, הגשה, and have ציבור offerings like יחיד offerings. An objection is raised that if Reish Lakish is correct then מנחות also have a case of והותרו מכלל איסור בקודש, namely מנחת עומר, since חדש is still forbidden to eat yet the offering is kosher, and the response says that since אין מחוסר זמן לבו ביום it is not treated as an איסור at all for this purpose.
- Rav Sheshet challenges Reish Lakish from the laws of a מצורע where סדר matters, citing that if oil applications precede blood applications the כהן must refill with oil and repeat after the blood, and if the בהונות precede the מתן שבע the oil must be refilled and reapplied after the seven. The challenge argues that if אין מחוסר זמן לבו ביום then the repeated applications should be unnecessary because “מה דעבד עבד.” Rav Pappa answers that הלכות מצורע are different because the Torah uses הויה, derived from זאת תהיה תורת המצורע as תהיה בהוייתה תהא, requiring the specified order.
- Rav Pappa raises another case: if the מצורע’s חטאת is slaughtered before the אשם, the rule states no one may be appointed to stir the blood until the אשם is processed, and instead the חטאת must undergo עיבור צורה and be burned. The Gemara asks why Rav Pappa challenges, since he already said מצורע is governed by הויה, and it answers that Rav Pappa’s real difficulty is that only עבודה may be bound to order while שחיטה is not עבודה because שחיטה כשרה בזר, so if אין מחוסר זמן לבו ביום one could stir the blood, bring the אשם, and then return to the חטאת. Rav Pappa then provides a different basis for Reish Lakish: Reish Lakish holds האיר מזרח מתיר, and Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both say that even בזמן שבית המקדש קיים the dawn itself permits, with a מצוה להמתין עד הבאת עומר but it is not מעכב.
- Reish Lakish’s view is said not to be stated explicitly but inferred from a case in the Mishnah that אין מביאין מנחות ביכורים ומנחת בהמה קודם לעומר, yet ואם הביא כשר. Rabbi Yitzḥak says in the name of Reish Lakish that this כשרות if brought applies only to the 14th and 15th of ניסן, but on the 16th if one brought them they are כשר, proving that he holds האיר מזרח מתיר.
- Rava rules that מנחת עומר שקמצה שלא לשמה כשרה and its שיריים are eaten without needing another מנחת עומר to permit them. Rava grounds this in the principle שאין מחשבה מועלת אלא במי שראוי לעבודה ובדבר הראוי לעבודה ובמקום הראוי לעבודה. The text explains that “במי שראוי לעבודה” excludes a כהן בעל מום, “בדבר הראוי לעבודה” excludes מנחת עומר because it is a חידוש, and “במקום הראוי לעבודה” excludes a case of נפגם המזבח.
- A new extended discussion begins with the opening verses of ויקרא, noting that each occurrence of מן functions as an exclusion, and asks why the next verse adds אם עלה קרבנו מן הבקר. A ברייתא teaches that מן הבקר למטה is unnecessary except to exclude a טרפה from being brought as a קרבן. The ברייתא presents a קל וחומר from בעל מום, since בעל מום is permitted to an הדיוט yet prohibited to גבוה, so טרפה which is prohibited to an הדיוט should certainly be prohibited to גבוה, and it then tests and responds to challenges using examples like חלב ודם and מליקה, concluding that the verse is still needed להוציא את הטרפה.
- The Gemara asks what the phrase ואם תאמר refers to by seeking a possible objection to the קל וחומר, and it begins a sequence of proposed refutations that are each rejected. Rav suggests מנחת העומר as a counterexample because it is אסורה להדיוט yet מותרת לגבוה, but it is rejected because it is special in that it מתרת חדש; an attempt to place it on שביעית is rejected because it still מתרת ספיחין, and even according to רבי עקיבא who holds ספיחין אסורין בשביעית it is countered by the claim that it still relates to חדש in חוצה לארץ or that it comes to permit its own לאו, and the conclusion returns to the answer that the distinguishing factor is שכן מצותה בכך. Reish Lakish proposes פיטום הקטורת, first formulated as מפטם הקטורת and corrected to פיטום הקטורת, but it too is rejected with שכן מצוותה בכך. Mar barיה דרבינא proposes שבת, arguing that it is אסור להדיוט and מותר לגבוה through שבת offerings, but it is rejected first by a comparison to מילה and then by the conclusion that bringing offerings on שבת is also a case of שכן מצוותה בכך. Rav Ada bar Abba proposes כלאים through the אבנט of the כהן גדול, it is challenged by ציצית, and it is again rejected with the conclusion that the Temple case is permitted because שכן מצוותן בכך, leaving the search unresolved at this stopping point.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions